Michigan would lose about $5.9 million in environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste. In addition, Michigan could lose another $1.5 million in grants for fish and wildlife protection.

We heard a lot about about how the sequester might affect things like airports, school funding, and Medicare, but we wanted to know more about the numbers above.

How might environmental programs in the region be affected?

Andy Buchsbaum, from the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes office, came in to talk "sequester" with me.

"They could have devastating effects. It's about an 8% cut across the board for Great Lakes programs, particularly for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which is the program that has been restoring the Great Lakes, and creating jobs and making the lakes healthy again," said Buchsbaum.

That equals about a $25 million cut this fiscal year. More cuts could come in the following years.

"The Great Lakes restoration money that we're seeing now already is much less than the first year."

The GLRI received $475 million in its first year, the following year the budget was dropped to $300 million.

"And so now we're talking about going below that $300 million, $275 million or less, you're really starting to cut into the muscle of Great Lakes restoration," he said.

The Great Lakes have never seen restoration money from the federal government like this before.

Here's a map of all the projects the federal government has funded over the years:

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative projects since 2010.

Credit GLRI / Environmental Protection Agency

Some are saying these continual budget battles are, at their core, a debate about the size and role of the federal government. So I asked Buchsbaum, why should the federal government get involved in this kind of work?

He said he thinks the debate is really about priorities.

"There's going to be a federal government. There always is going to be, and it's going to have certain roles," Buchsbaum said.

"These are international, inter-state waters. They can't be cleaned up by states. They can't be cleaned up by cities. They're a shared resource by two countries, and by probably a quarter of the population of the country, so if there's ever a federal priority, it's this one."

Return on invested tax dollars

In their report, the National Wildlife Federation points to studies that show the return on investment for Great Lakes clean-up.

A Brookings Institution report concluded that for every $1 invested in Great Lakes restoration, $2 will be generated in new jobs, development, and increased property values.

A study by Grand Valley State University economists found that a $10 million restoration project at Muskegon Lake in Michigan produced more than $66 million in economic benefits via increased property values, more tourism and higher tax revenues.

So Buchsbaum's group and others will be working to convince legislators in the coming weeks that despite inevitable cuts, cuts to Great Lakes restoration shouldn't happen.

His group and others are hosting Great Lakes Days in Washington D.C. where environmental leaders and activists will lobby Congress and the Obama Administration to keep funding Great Lakes restoration.

Their voice will be one of thousands clamoring for funding from the federal government as the next fiscal deadline approaches.

In Brackett's report, Andrew Gronewold of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory explained the low levels this way.

When the water temperatures increase, which they are right now, especially through the summertime; then, in the fall, when we have the cool air masses coming over the lakes, we have increased evaporation, and that evaporation rate has been exaggerated, particularly this year.

We're also in a year where there's been extremely low precipitation, so over the last year very little rain was coming in to the system, both in the form of snow melting in the springtime and then also direct rainfall onto the lakes themselves.

Chuck May of the Great Lakes Small Harbors Coalition said the federal government needs to do more.

Again, from Brackett's report:

The federal government actually owns these harbors, these channels. And they actually have a tax called a harbor maintenance tax that they put in place the beginning of 1985 to take care of these harbors. So far, in the past 15 years, they have collected $8 billion dollars that they have not spent on harbors.

Some lawmakers in Lansing want to tap the state’s “rainy day” fund to pay for emergency harbor dredging in the Great Lakes.

A group of Republican state Senators today endorsed opening up $30 million from the fund for projects around the state.

They also offered a number of ways to fund future dredging projects.

State Senator Geoff Hansen (R-Hart) says a short-term solution isn’t enough to address record-low water levels in the Great Lakes.

“These are designed to be long-term solutions. We have the one-time, right now fix. And in the end of the day we need to have enough dollars to make that this year we’re keeping our ports open,” said Hansen.

Governor Snyder set aside over $20 million in his proposed budget for emergency dredging. That money would not come out of the state’s savings.

The lawmakers say their plan is meant to supplement Snyder’s proposal, not replace it.

Peter Payette has been covering this story for Interlochen Public Radio and I spoke with him for today's Environment Report.

Payette said the issue that is front and center is the need for more dredging in the smaller harbors and marinas. He says they have not been getting help from the federal government - help that used to be there.

"Traditionally, it’s been the federal government through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that has dredged these channels to keep them open, and that has not been happening, and so now with the lake levels lower that problem is really being exacerbated," said Payette.